Adam & Eve - Were they the FIRST Man and Woman?

[Philip]

Paul: Phillip, where does the bible explicitly state that Adam and Eve were the FIRST people created?
I Corinthians 15-45 doesn't count because if read it in context it is about the comparison of natural VS spiritual.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, [n]earthy; the second man is from heaven.

Well, Paul, within that comparison, it compares using an analogy based upon something it is asserting as a fact: that "Adam BECAME a living soul." Note, Adam was not alive BEFORE he became a living soul. Also, when Adam named Eve, he did so because "she was the mother of ALL living." It doesn't qualify a region of those it includes and it doesn't allude to any other humans or a supposed lost world.

[RickD]

Let's say for the sake of the argument, that the common TE interpretation is a valid one to have. Specifically that Adam and Eve weren't the first humans, but they were the first humans in the line of people from Christ's human lineage.

How does that interpretation fit Romans 5:12-14?
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for [a]until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

A common TE understanding of those verses in Romans, is that the text is referring to spiritual death only. Not physical death. So, was Adam the first sinner, even though other humans pre dated him? If yes, then other humans who lived and died before Adam existed, never sinned, and didn't need redemption?

Or, is there another explanation?

[RickD]

Paul: Phillip, where does the bible explicitly state that Adam and Eve were the FIRST people created?
I Corinthians 15-45 doesn't count because if read it in context it is about the comparison of natural VS spiritual.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, [n]earthy; the second man is from heaven.

Well, Paul, within that comparison, it compares using an analogy based upon something it is asserting as a fact: that "Adam BECAME a living soul." Note, Adam was not alive BEFORE he became a living soul. Also, when Adam named Eve, he did so because "she was the mother of ALL living." It doesn't qualify a region of those it includes and it doesn't allude to any other humans or a supposed lost world.

Philip, If you don't mind, I'll answer this one. It was covered in my Theistic Evolution 101 class.

Mother of all the living, simply refers to the mother, or female figurehead maybe, of all the spritually living. Since Adam and Eve were the first in the line of Christ, who we are made alive by spiritually, hence the term, "Mother of all the living".

[Byblos]

There's another explanation. TE does not necessarily entail Adam and Eve are the first of Chirst's lineage. The more generic understanding is that they were the first to be endowed with a rational soul, that which what means to be created in the image of God.

P.S. All living things have souls since what it means to he a soul is that which animates the body. The question is what type of soul: plants have a non-sentient irrational soul, animals have a sentient, irrational soul, and humans have a sentient, rational soul. All humanoids prior to A&E had the second type and therefore were not part of the salvation plan.

[RickD]

There's another explanation. TE does not necessarily entail Adam and Eve are the first of Chirst's lineage. The more generic understanding is that they were the first to be endowed with a rational soul, that which what means to be created in the image of God.

P.S. All living things have souls since what it means to he a soul is that which animates the body. The question is what type of soul: plants have a non-sentient irrational soul, animals have a sentient, irrational soul, and humans have a sentient, rational soul. All humanoids prior to A&E had the second type and therefore were not part of the salvation plan.

Thanks Byblos.

If all other humanoids, without a sentient, rational soul were existing before Adam, and also at the same time as Adam, does that mean they weren't fully human? Were they completely the same physically, but only lacking the rational, sentient soul? The reason I ask, is because it then gets into things like who was Cain's wife, and maybe even who were the "daughters of men", "sons of God" that the bible talks about.

I'd also be interested to know if you think those that were alive but without sentient, rational souls, received that sentient, rational soul, when Adam sinned.

And further, if Australian aborigines are included among those with sentient, irrational souls. And if they aren't fully human, how did they become fully human?

Interesting stuff for sure.

[Philip]

Rick, that is ONE possibility about Eve. And, truly, I really am open to a range of possibilities about Adam and Eve, albeit within the framework of them being actual people. But, again, it is entirely possible that we have misread portions of Genesis, and also have glued together two different Creation accounts improperly, etc. We clearly could have incorrect understandings of the current genetic analysis. But the one thing that truly holds for me is that, SOMEHOW, the Scripture is true, because that is the consistent and redundant testimony of Jesus and the Apostles - really, if you doubt that, I really can't see holding to ANY part of the NT with any great degree of confidence. And the strong emphasis in an allegory route for THE foundational story of the Bible is something I find highly problematic.

Here's an extremely fascinating analysis on the Genesis texts in question, by Michael Heiser - one of the leading conservative Christian scholars in ancient Hebrew and Bible civilizations/cultures, multiple ancient languages and history:

http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible ... -research/ When you break it down like he has here, the Genesis accounts offer some possibilities that show the text CAN be true, but not necessarily in the sense that the Church has traditionally interpreted it. He's great at revealing little bombshells: ex: Adam and Eve's Garden is not the same as Eden - it's IN Eden, but Eden is more than the Garden. Cool.

Heiser has a website called The Naked Bible (http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/) - naked, in that the goal of the site is to study what the text actually says and what range of possibilities does it reasonably provide - AS OPPOSED TO reading the text through 21st century Western eyes AND intentionally viewed without reading into it centuries of the Church's traditional teachings on various issues (as tradition can possibly be wrong). The site offers constant interaction with others posing questions and interacting with Heiser.

[DBowling]

Some thoughts... as I've been working my way through the implications of my conclusion that Adam and Eve were not the first humans.

There's another explanation. TE does not necessarily entail Adam and Eve are the first of Chirst's lineage. The more generic understanding is that they were the first to be endowed with a rational soul, that which what means to be created in the image of God.

Scripture very explicitly states that Adam and Eve were the first of Christ's lineage. Adam and Eve are at the very beginning of the genealogies of God's people in the OT, and the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3 begins with Adam. So Adam and Eve may not be the first humans, but the Bible very explicitly places them at the beginning of the lineage of God's people and the lineage of Jesus specifically.

Also, according to Scripture, Adam and Eve were not the first image bearers of God.

Mankind was created in the image of God in Genesis 1:26-27 before Adam and Eve appear in the next chapter in Genesis 2.
So if we follow the sequence of events laid out in Genesis 1 and 2, we discover that human 'image bearers of God' (Genesis 1:26-27) pre-dated Adam and Eve (Genesis 2)

If all other humanoids, without a sentient, rational soul were existing before Adam, and also at the same time as Adam, does that mean they weren't fully human? Were they completely the same physically, but only lacking the rational, sentient soul? The reason I ask, is because it then gets into things like who was Cain's wife, and maybe even who were the "daughters of men", "sons of God" that the bible talks about.

I think we need to be very careful to distinguish between pre-human hominids (who are not species homo sapiens sapiens) and pre-Adamic humans (who are species homo sapiens sapiens).

I would not expect any pre-human hominid that is not of the human species (ie species homo sapiens sapiens... also known as physically modern human) to be either an 'image bearer of God' or to have a human soul.
However, I would expect the pre-Adamic humans of Genesis 1:26-27 who are described as 'image bearers of God' to be species homo sapiens sapiens and, as an image bearer of God, to possess a soul.

I am also convinced that the 'sons of God' in Genesis 6 refers to the lineage of Adam (who had life spans of around 900 years), while the 'daughters of men' refer to humans who were not of Adam's lineage who had typical human life spans. Notice that the life spans of the children of the 'sons of God' and 'daughters of men' dropped to 120 years from the 900 years of the Adamic line.

This is similar to the life span drop of the descendants of Noah who was the sole survivor of the Adamic line following the great flood.

My .02 on a very interesting topic

[Kurieuo]

There's another explanation. TE does not necessarily entail Adam and Eve are the first of Chirst's lineage. The more generic understanding is that they were the first to be endowed with a rational soul, that which what means to be created in the image of God.

P.S. All living things have souls since what it means to he a soul is that which animates the body. The question is what type of soul: plants have a non-sentient irrational soul, animals have a sentient, irrational soul, and humans have a sentient, rational soul. All humanoids prior to A&E had the second type and therefore were not part of the salvation plan.

There are many facets to the imago Dei.
One important is our our ability to be united with another in mind, body and spirit.
It's perhaps an important predominantly human quality, a desire to leave and pair up with another for a lifetime.

It's not individuals who are created in the image of God according to Genesis 1:27, but rather humanity (mankind).
Specifically, "in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."

I here draw attention away from the masculine and feminine qualities of God, towards His image found in our being united.
"That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." (Gen 2:24)
"The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!" (Deut 6:4)

God is relational, indeed within His very nature (Gen 1:26; Gen 3:22; Gen 11:7; Isaiah 6:8), and He designed husband and wife after Himself.
Ironically, some of us spend a lifetime trying to work out such in marriage.

[PaulSacramento]

Paul: Phillip, where does the bible explicitly state that Adam and Eve were the FIRST people created?
I Corinthians 15-45 doesn't count because if read it in context it is about the comparison of natural VS spiritual.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, [n]earthy; the second man is from heaven.

Well, Paul, within that comparison, it compares using an analogy based upon something it is asserting as a fact: that "Adam BECAME a living soul." Note, Adam was not alive BEFORE he became a living soul. Also, when Adam named Eve, he did so because "she was the mother of ALL living." It doesn't qualify a region of those it includes and it doesn't allude to any other humans or a supposed lost world.

Eve being mother to all the living can be viewed in a few different ways and it is clear that the statement is NOT meant as a literal comment or else Eve would be mother to ALL LIVING THINGS, which we know is not the case.
My point is that nowhere is it explicit that Adam and Eve were the first humans.
What is explicit is that they were the ONLY humans in the garden that was in Eden.

I agree with Dr. Heiser on this.

[PaulSacramento]

If we are to take Genesis 2 strickly and literally ( in as much as we can) what is explicit is that the Garden in Eden is set apart from the rest of the world ( and IF we take Genesis as chronological, it was created AFTER the creation events in Genesis 1).
We know that Adam was made from the Earth and Eve from Him so they are a different and distinct creation than the rest of creation.
We know that they were to take care of the garden and told to eat of anything BUT the tree of knowledge, that they failed because Eve was tempted and that Adam failed because we went along with Eve.
We know that God was with them in The Garden on at least one occasion.
We know that to keep from being ( perhaps staying) immortal, they were banished so they could not eat from the tree of life.
We know that they went out into the world and survived.

[Philip]

One thing is for sure, Adam & Eve were (apparently) WHITE, had good hair stylists, and Eve's makeup was always immaculate! And that triple-blade razor of Adam's was keeping the boyfriend smooth (no WONDER he's not so hairy )



Edit: Yep, I CONFIRMED it - go to Google Images - Adam & Eve were definitely WHITE.

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
...We know that they were to take care of the garden and told to eat of anyone BUT the tree of knowledge,...

Now you're saying Adam and Eve were CANNIBALS?!?!? What kind of crazy theistic evolution do you believe in?

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
...We know that they were to take care of the garden and told to eat of anyone BUT the tree of knowledge,...

Now you're saying Adam and Eve were CANNIBALS?!?!? What kind of crazy theistic evolution do you believe in?

LMAO, My bad !

[PaulSacramento]

One thing is for sure, Adam & Eve were (apparently) WHITE, had good hair stylists, and Eve's makeup was always immaculate! And that triple-blade razor of Adam's was keeping the boyfriend smooth (no WONDER he's not so hairy )



Edit: Yep, I CONFIRMED it - go to Google Images - Adam & Eve were definitely WHITE.

Oivay !


I guess that, if we want to make an accurate representation of how they COULD have looked and we take into account that AT LEAST the Hebrew bloodline goes back to them, then they would, based on the dominate genes, have dark hair and dark eyes and darker than nordic skin.

[Byblos]

There's another explanation. TE does not necessarily entail Adam and Eve are the first of Chirst's lineage. The more generic understanding is that they were the first to be endowed with a rational soul, that which what means to be created in the image of God.

P.S. All living things have souls since what it means to he a soul is that which animates the body. The question is what type of soul: plants have a non-sentient irrational soul, animals have a sentient, irrational soul, and humans have a sentient, rational soul. All humanoids prior to A&E had the second type and therefore were not part of the salvation plan.

Thanks Byblos.

If all other humanoids, without a sentient, rational soul were existing before Adam, and also at the same time as Adam, does that mean they weren't fully human? Were they completely the same physically, but only lacking the rational, sentient soul? The reason I ask, is because it then gets into things like who was Cain's wife, and maybe even who were the "daughters of men", "sons of God" that the bible talks about.

I'd also be interested to know if you think those that were alive but without sentient, rational souls, received that sentient, rational soul, when Adam sinned.

I, as a Catholic, can be certain of two things (that are, in fact, de fide): 1) in a historical Adam and Eve, and 2) in monogenism. Therefore, no other hominid that is not a direct descendant of A&E had a rational soul (was made in the image of God). As to the question of where Cain's wife came from, I don't discount the idea that it could have been his sister. Yes, we recoil at the thought of incest now but back then the gene pool was still pure and incestual relations were permitted.

And further, if Australian aborigines are included among those with sentient, irrational souls. And if they aren't fully human, how did they become fully human?

How exactly can we be certain they are NOT descendants of A&E? After all, science purports that not only homo sapiens but all living things are traceable to a single source.